The Holy Spirit is never depicted in human form in mainstream Christianity.
The Annealing Flame of Salvation
Notes on the Holy Spirit and Armstrongism
By Redermann
“… the Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit is the power and energy of the God Family, as well as the very nature, life and mind of God — not another spiritual entity!” Richard H Sedliacik (Good News, April 1985)
“God tells Christ what to do … Jesus then speaks as the workman, and the Holy Spirit is the power that responds and does what Jesus commands.” Herbert W. Armstrong (Mystery of the Ages, First Edition,
p. 44.
“The Holy Spirit from Christ is like a current of electricity flowing through a light bulb. We are that bulb.” Herman Hoeh, (Plain Truth Magazine, June 1956)
“Man is put here on earth to learn to develop tools for limited creative work — to train himself for the ETERNAL GOAL — becoming part of the God-family, which means control of the creative Spirit of God.” Herman Hoeh (Plain Truth Magazine, June 1956)
The nature of the Holy Spirit is a topic that has been fraught with controversy for centuries. The Bible describes the Holy Spirit with much different analogies than what are used for the Father and the Son. But, in general, the Christian church has come to understand the Holy Spirit to a sufficient degree to form a reasonable and scriptural doctrine. An exception to this mainstream doctrine is the view that is found in Armstrongism and other similar denominations originating in the Restoration Movement. The quotations above briefly illustrate the inclination of the Armstrongist view. That view is that the Holy Spirit is an energy or force used by God to project his power. The Holy Spirit is not a person and, therefore, it is an impersonal force. This essay addresses the deficiency of that view. I will not use the traditional approach to supporting the mainstream doctrine of the Holy Spirit which involves careful exegesis but rather some non-traditional arguments. Theology gains clarity by going first to the Doctrine of God and I will begin at that point.
God is absolute. He created everything and sustains everything. Deism is false. Yet, there are Deistic tendencies in many denominational theologies. Deism is the idea that God has created the Cosmos as an external object, like a great machine, and the machine can run without divine intervention. It is as if you made a lawn mower in your garage and then gave it to someone else so you really no longer have anything to do with it. In contrast, the NT says this about all created things:
“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:3)
Jesus not only created all things (in the Cosmos and in the transcendent realm), but he sustains these things across time – moment to moment. So far, I think we can all agree with these statements. Now I am going to write something that will require some careful, non-dogmatic thought. God does not need an energy or force to carry out the action of his will. God is absolute and controls all things at the most fundamental level of reality. There may be a division of responsibility among the Divine Persons but God does not need an impersonal force to project his power. He is sovereign over everything by profound creational intimacy.
The idea that the Holy Spirit is an energy that God uses to project his will is derived from the anthropomorphic language of the Bible. Anthropomorphism is analogical language that illuminates events where principle rather than the details of the ontology of God are the focus. This language is based on ideas with which we are familiar in our human realm. Men use energy to accomplish work whether it be human strength or electricity or fire or the tapping of the nucleus of an atom. This human model is then used by the Bible authors to depict God. And it has a vividness that other depictions that truly reflect God’s ontology might not have for some minds. But the model is from physics – created physics. But if God is absolute, and he is, the physics model is not fully apt. It is just literature but literature to good purpose.
Armstrongists depict the Holy Spirit as an attribute of God. It is true that God says “my Spirit,” as if the Spirit were an attribute but he also says “my Son.” This language does not relegate both the Spirit and the Son to attributes. Christians depict the Holy Spirit as a divine person that is both separate and in unity with God. Throughout the OT there are references to the Spirit. An example is, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Sprit saith the Lord.” The question is why is the Spirit given a separate and significant presence, frequently incorporated in the statements of God, when the Spirit is just an attribute of God as Armstrongists believe? If the Spirit is just an attribute of God could it not be easily left out of the picture – just assumed? Couldn’t God just simply say, “I did this,” instead of “the Spirit did this” when the Spirit as an attribute simply refers to God. If the Spirit is only an attribute, it is like you and I always saying “my hand took the pencil” instead of just saying “I took the pencil.” The fact is in OT syntax the Spirit is accorded a separate status. When the Spirit is mentioned, the language refers to the action and participation of the Holy Spirit as a separate divine person.
There is a bit of sleight of hand in the Armstrongist beliefs about the Holy Spirit. This is illustrated in the quotation from Richard H. Sedliacik at the beginning of this essay. Sedliacik maintains that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal energy or power but it bears with it somehow God’s nature, life and mind. The idea that the Holy Spirit bears God’s mind stands on the brink of admitting that the Holy Spirit is a separate being. But maybe Armstrongists believe that the “mind of God” in this case is just a kind of information package carried by the Holy Spirit but not really an active mind. In this way the Holy Spirit can bear the mind of God but still be an impersonal non-being energy. This sleight of hand is really present so all the scriptures that indicate that the Holy Spirit is a being can be accommodated within the theory of an impersonal energy (Romans 8:27). That does not really work. From the context of Romans 8:27, we know that the usage of the term “mind” is not metaphor or symbol or literary personification but actual. We have the Holy Spirit in that same verse making intercession for the saints. Making intercession requires mind, free will, independent action, awareness, communication, the ability to analyze empirical data and so on.
Some of the arguments against the idea of the Holy Spirit being a divine person are curious. One argument is that by some unusual mathematics, three is a closed number and two is an open number. And the false “Trinity teaching,” so claimed, limits God to three persons. This is coupled with the unsupportable idea that man will become “God as God is God” so there will need to be many more places at the God table. No doubt people who believe in the Trinity do not believe the radically liberal idea that more full status Gods will be added to the God category. But that limitation is not derived from the inherent nature of the number three. The idea that the integer three is closed is facetious. Another argument against the Holy Spirit as a Person was made by Garner Ted Armstrong (GTA). At one time I was quite impressed with this sophomoric argument. GTA asserted that if Jesus was conceived by the action of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is a being, then God was not the Father of Jesus but maybe an uncle or some other relation. GTA’s solution to this problem was to assert that the Holy Spirit is not a being but an energy. The problem with this is that it is a violation of Occam’s Razor – that the simplest answer is the best answer and the only supportable answer. GTA radically redefined the ontology of the Holy Spirit when the only immediate conclusion you can draw from this data is simply that God and the Holy Spirit are the same – which then leads to the Trinity. The second quotation at the top, from Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA), is also informative. HWA saw God as a hierarchy. He did not see the co-equal relationship that John referred to (John 5:18) or is evinced by the Three-fold Formula. Unsurprisingly, the model of a single leader ruling over a hierarchy seemed to dominate HWA's thinking and was the backbone of church government and an Ambassador College education. This has an Arianist flavor which was held by some in the Church of God Seventh Day.
Speaking of metaphor, there is a way the Bible uses metaphor that bears on this topic. Most metaphors in the Bible are “downward metaphors.” I am coining that term. This refers to comparing a higher being or object to a lesser being or object. We might find a scripture that states that the Holy Spirit was “poured out.” If the Holy Spirit is really a person, this is a downward metaphor. It makes an intelligent being seem like liquid in order to vividly emphasize a trait – in this case scope or availability. This is found often in the Bible. “Upward metaphors” are seldom found in the Bible, if at all. (Let me know if you find one.) This is comparing a lesser being or object to a higher being or object. This is like saying, “the ocean decided to fight against us.” My guess is that this is seldom used because it has pagan implications. Pagans may see various forces, energies, flora and fauna in nature as animistic beings. This leads to a probabilistic rather than categorical conclusion. It is very unlikely that an upward metaphor that attributes mind to an impersonal energy would be used by an NT writer. It is more likely that when Paul in Romans 8:27 refers to the “mind of the spirit” he means just that. The Holy Spirit is a divine person with a mind.
Finally, the most appalling idea that devolves from the belief that the Holy Spirit is an energy is expressed in Herman Hoeh’s statement in the final quotation in the list of quotations at the top. This is the idea that when Armstronngists become “God as God is God” they will have dominion over the Holy Spirit. While this view is held out of misunderstanding, it is nevertheless explosively shocking to someone who understands that the Holy Spirit is a divine person in the Trinity. One mentally recoils and hopes that such believers in this idea will come to enlightenment and not be consigned to perdition.
In the debate over the Holy Spirit, those who favor the Spirit as energy will claim that the scriptures that make the Spirit sound like a being are metaphorical. And it is the reverse for those who believe the Holy Spirit is a divine person. So, we have a kind of deadlock. Although the debate is lopsided in terms of the number of supporters and type of supporters. The Holy Spirit as energy is supported by few who are cultic and believe many off-the-wall ideas. The believers in the Holy Spirit as a divine person are many and are orthodox. Perhaps, some of the non-traditional arguments I have made in this essay will break the deadlock for a few.
86 comments:
More demonism to deceive the elect in these end times.
Did the ancients have a concept of energy flowing through lightbulbs??? Or should we be looking toward the Eastern/Asian concepts from Hinduism and the Vedas of all things being one. After all Jesus did work for 20 years in the important political city of Sepphoris where all philosophies merged through thpe Silk road traders! Nck and I mean this seriously sincecall early Buddha statues are based on Greek culture as were the Priestsfrom Judaism completely Hellenized
Anonymous 11:35
You have made a facile assertion without citing any support. You need now to explain why you think your assertion is true.
Redermann
"Perhaps, some of the non-traditional arguments I have made in this essay will break the deadlock for a few."
Nah, its too long and you didnt use simple enough language for tbe Armstrongist palate.
RSK
Thanks for the feedback. I would like to have created a more condensed statement. The problem is that this topic is not simple. My belief is that if God is working with someone's mind, there will be the motivation to read it. If God is not at work, reading isn't going to do them any good anyway. My guess is that most Armstrongists will not be able to respond to it in any coherent way and will therefore dismiss it. But there may be a few.
Redermann
Anon @11:35. Clearly, you are not a member of PCG. Old Gerry says that he, as a member and leader of the "very" elect cannot be deceived. Hah! Gerry is far too dumb to appreciate the irony of his words. Study this again for yourself Anon. Please. Just who it is that is practicing "demonism" will hopefully surprise you.
The Trinity is provable by Scripture and believed by Christians of every denomination. Had I ever been a believer in Armstrongism or its splinters, my greatest fear would be committing the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Not out of a lack of understanding because this is some heddy stuff; but out of arrogance and pride or laziness on my part to study it for myself. Pack, for example, literally changed the words of Scripture on a Tomorrow's World program (sorry if I got the wrong name). He had a passage on screen that referred 4 times to the Holy Spirit as "He" and Dave changed it to "it". Now that dear friends is the unpardonable sin.
This article is well done and accurate. God help those who deny this truth to see the light. My comments frequently include doctrines/teachings of orthodox Christianity, with which many here disagree. Fair enough. But to my dying breath, I will always try to highlight the Christian position in the hopes that just one on the opposite side of the matter will study it again for themselves and decide based solely on Scripture, not their ministers telling them what to believe.
Ironically, it is solely the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer who teaches us what any given verse or passage means. What does that tell you about the wise ministers of splinterdom?
"Man is put here on earth to learn to develop tools for limited creative work — TO TRAIN HIMSELF for the ETERNAL GOAL ..." = HOGWASH. How can a sinful man be equipped to train himself?
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
Ephesians 2:4-10 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES;IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 FOR WE ARE HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Phil.2:12-14 12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 FOR IT IS GOD WHO IS AT WORK IN YOU, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Matthew 3:16-17 16 After being baptized, JESUS came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the SPIRIT OF GOD descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, A VOICE OUT OF THE HEAVENS SAID, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
Father, Son, Holy Spirit visible and heard at one time in one place by many.
"The Holy Spirit is not a person and, therefore, it is an impersonal force."
---------
No. It's very personal - God's power (Acts 1:8) directed by a very personal being - God. OK, what I just wrote may be "inadequate" to describe spirit but I'll go with it.
If the holy spirit is a person, there would be many more references to him in the NT.
In Christ's long prayer in the book of John, the holy spirit is barely mentioned.
This is a thoughtful and well-written essay on a complex subject. Redermann has effectively articulated why the trinitarian view has prevailed among the majority of Christianity, and the problems inherent with Armstrongism's characterizations of the Holy Spirit. And, while I have no problem embracing the various orthodox creeds and confessions relative to the trinity, I am also cognizant of the history of this doctrine - which causes me to wrinkle my nose at anyone who is too dogmatic on the subject.
We must not forget that the only Scriptures which Jesus, his apostles, and the First Century Christians had access to were the Hebrew Scriptures (known to us as the Old Testament). Hence, the orthodox position on the nature of God, developed over time - as the writings of the apostles and other early Christians came together and were more widely available to Christian scholars. In other words, we would have to explain what we meant by the doctrine of the Trinity to Peter, James, John and Paul before we could even solicit their opinion on the teaching! This should evoke just a little humility among the rest of us on this topic.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on "The Blessed Trinity," we read: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus." Moreover, the very language of the doctrine suggests a high degree of ambiguity: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another." After all, is it truly reflective of the nature of God to characterize God as a "person"? Indeed, I like the Catholic characterization of this subject as a "mystery" - suggesting the truth of the notion that we humans cannot fully comprehend the nature of God.
Finally, as Redermann points out in this excellent article, the Armstrongist smugness on this point is very misplaced. For instance, are they saying that the Holy Spirit isn't God? Are they saying that God's power, mind, and character aren't God? - that those qualities which constitute the entity which we call God can somehow be separated from it? And how do they explain Christ's own language which portrays him as being ONE with the Father? In other words, I think that it is dangerous and foolish to use our limited understanding of the exact nature of God as a cudgel against each other or as a means to exclude each other from the "true" faith. Once again, I believe that a little humility is in order.
Anonymous 8:48 wrote, "It's very personal - God's power (Acts 1:8) directed by a very personal being..."
Don't go with it yet. You are a personal being. If you use a screwdriver, does that make the screwdriver also personal? Stop and consider. You have actually collided with what is wrong with the Armstrongist model of the Holy Spirit. A corollary: the personal qualities that you find in scripture in reference to the Holy Spirit are there because the Holy Spirit is personal.
Redermann
John witnessed in vision: And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and the four living beings, and . . . there are seven spirits of God; (Revelation 5:6)
— here the seven spirits of God have some descriptions each, each with an eye and even a horn; nevertheless since the Spirit is inherently holy, there would be seven Holy Spirits; and we would add Jesus the Son and God the Father, resulting in nine Personage. Nine in the Godhead; we should have a Polygon or a Nonagon; it might be more realistic to believe in the Polyty or a Nonaty, nine heads, that would be more like an Indian goddess but certainly wouldn’t be a Trinity.
Now most of the above debate and comments back and forth is a fantastic, thoughtful and honest discussion! I would love to see more of this respectful back and forth on a specific doctrine every week! Born again Monday or Eternal Hell Tuesday, etc.
To me, the thoughtful article, respectful comments on both sides are the very best way to teach, learn, prove or disprove any given topic. If just one gets it...praise the Lord, but this may actually encourage more than just one to rethink what they believe and why. Just a suggestion.
Thank you Banned for allowing all sides to comment (unlike most of the splinters) and God willing, Jesus will lift the veil.:-)
My experience with the rcg/WCG goes back to 1956. That’s when I began listening to the broadcast, reading the literature and studying the CC. Later I went to AC, church services, and working part time , then full time after graduating. 20+ years later I left the WCG. Today I am a member of no group.
During college I continued to study each new CC that came out. In addition to classes and work. One day I had a “bright” idea. Do a survey of the other students to see if others also studied the correspondence course. The majority did not.
That plus other experiences during those 20+ years and after, and finding and reading this site, leads me to a startling conclusion.
1. Of course this site is filled with complainers.
2. Most of the accusations and complaints are bogus.
3. Most are based on not understanding at all what the teachings were.
4. Most descriptions are warped versions of those teaching based on lack of understanding.
5. Then those warped understandings are then attacked and blamed on someone from the WCG.
6. Then the writer says his/her explanations tell us why HWA ,etal, were crooked, liars, etc., etc. ad infinitum.
7. No viable alternatives are offered.
8. And, everyone is happy because they got to explain their grump to other grumps.
On the other hand, it would be nice if someone would take the REAL teaching on the Holy Spirit as was really taught, versus snippets of verses, and tear that teaching apart, if you can.
Also, it would be a delight if those on this site would attack the real reasons and problems that broke the WCG and Ambassador. But, sad to say I don’t think anyone here can.
Yes, I left for good reason, but I never got out of the teachings what the critics here claim. But, I admit, it is fun for humans to gossip.
Anonymous 8:59
If there were 80 occurrences of the Holy Spirit as an energy and 20 occurrences of the Holy Spirit as a being, doctrine would have to take into consideration both pieces of data. And the final doctrinal position would not be determined statistically by what idea occurs the most often.
Redermann
Anonymous Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 1:46:00 PM PST,
Your comments were in the nature of a general criticism of this site. Do you have any specific rebuttals to offer for this post? After all, the above post was NOT composed in the form of a complaint, the author's points are reasoned and focused, he/she quotes some of the leading figures of the WCOG, he/she points out some of the inconsistencies inherent within those statements, and the trinitarian alternative is effectively presented. In other words, this particular post does NOT fit your general criticism. So, again, I'm wondering do you have a specific criticism of this post to offer or any kind of defense of Armstrongism's binitarianism? Just wondering.
2.27 PM
Kamikaze pilots typically wrote a letter to their parents prior to flying to their deaths. Christ's long heartfelt prayer in John prior to His death is similar. That the holy spirit is barely mentioned in this situation has nothing to do with your "statistics" but rather a "letter" to those closest to Him, ie, God the Father. The holy spirit wasn't there.
Anon1:46,
The beliefs of the WCG have generally been accurately described. After 2hr services and often a weekly Bible Study each week and then holy days and all this for years on end. I think even the dullest among us have an accurate picture of what the WCG taught.
I also attended AC and read the magazines and booklets but not a lot of the correspondence courses. The correspondence course was carefully crafted to read one way to not scare off potential members. The real teachings were in the sermons where the actual members were.
Please be specific as to what you believe are the warped understandings of those here. Ironically (drawing from your comment), you are not offering an alternative version and you seem to be happy to explain your grump to the few other grumps of your same feather.
For the record, I am not saying its badly done or a bad read. I just don't think you took your target audience's proclivities and programming into account.
Also, this is simply trivia, but the Holy Spirit has been depicted as a person in Christian art of the past. Not the most common depiction (the dove of Matthew is definitely more popular), but there are a number of examples, like Andrei Rublev's icon.
Anonymous 4:48
I'm sorry - I don't know why you would refer to "my statistics." You were the one who wrote:
"If the holy spirit is a person, there would be many more references to him in the NT.
In Christ's long prayer in the book of John, the holy spirit is barely mentioned."
This is a statistical analysis. I wrote that the kind of statistical analysis you are invoking does not prove anything about the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. What you need to consider is that the Holy Spirit was with Jesus as he was praying in the passage you cite from the Book of John. Jesus was joined in his ministry by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, intimately involved, needed no mention in the moment. He had already been mentioned other places like in this passage from Isaiah:
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
The Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD—
and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. (Isaiah 11:1-3)
Redermann
Anonymous 1:46 wrote, "On the other hand, it would be nice if someone would take the REAL teaching on the Holy Spirit as was really taught, versus snippets of verses, and tear that teaching apart, if you can."
The article I used, principally, was written by Herman Hoeh and titled "What is the Holy Spirit?", Plain Truth, June 1956. Two of my "snippets" came from this article. The article did not differ from what I was taught over the course of 30 years in the WCG.
If you know of another document circulating in Splinterland that presents the "real" doctrine of the Holy Spirit, please provide a reference. I would like to have a look at it.
My guess is that whatever you refer to will contain the egregious error of asserting that the Holy Spirt is an impersonal energy and will fall within the scope of my critique.
Redermann
Just more to consider: Jesus said I and my Father are one, not I, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one. The "WE" in John 14:23 is Jesus and the Father, not Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit. The "He" referring to the Holy Spirit in verse 26 is from the Greek Strong's 1565 meaning that one (or [neut] thing).......
Earl said...
Anon1:46,
The beliefs of the WCG have generally been accurately described.
——————-
Earl, thanks for your comments.
As to the above comment, you are absolutely correct. The key word being GENERALLY! Yes, a general presentation with biased assumptions by the authors who, in too many cases, are those who came at the time the local ministers were not clearly presenting what they had been taught. One of our famous such here is a good example of what I am talking about.
One thing that is an example of what I see is in the convoluted comment about no emphasis in teaching about “Jesus.” This statement is deceptive. What the authors leave out is why the teachings about the Messiah are not exactly like xtianity. The answer is so simple that the ego intellect cannot grasp it. The RCG/WCG taught that He was so important that instead of gushing all over Him with pseudo-spirituality we should OBEY what HE SAID. I.e. Walk the walk not just be a bag of hot air talk.
Paul said “Follow me AS I follow Christ.” Right? Even to such “trivial” things like don’t raise your hand and swear. I know numbers of professing Xian’s who think that is silly and do not obey Him.
I got it from HWA, AC, classes, David Jon Hill, Al Portune, etc. that our Savior should be shown the highest respect by doing and living His example AND words. Not just oozing flatter talk about Him. To me that flies in the face of the pablum said on this site about not giving enough attention to the One who gave His life for us.
I have recently started listening to old sermons and radio broadcasts and rereading the literature. So far, almost everyone of them clearly disputes the majority of distortions posted here.
Thanks for reading.
Redermann wrote:
The article did not differ from what I was taught over the course of 30 years in the WCG.
That would make it around 1993, or so.
67 years ago I began listening to the broadcast and studying the lit.
64 years ago I enrolled in Ambassador.
So, I have a little experience to know what I’m talking about.
By the 1990s it was a way different world in the WCG/AC organizations.
I stand by my assessment.
6.22 PM
If the holy spirit is a person, he would want, and be given equal honor to the other two. Which you do not find in the NT. So a statistical analysis does count.
Christ was mindful of honor. He sat on a donkey that no one had ridden on, and was buried in a cave that had never been used. He maintained his dignity when questioned at His trial preceding His death, and spoke as an equal when conversing with Pilate.
That your third party holy spirit would not demand the same is inconceivable.
I know a guy who writes satirical descriptions of mythical figures. With permission, I present his take on the Christian Trinity.
A certain chief god consisted of three persons with separate attributes: a god of wrath, a god of redemption, and an ineffable god. They were so tightly twisted together that they could not be divided. Wherever one of them was, that space was fully occupied at the same time by the other two in their entirety. To maintain solidarity with monotheism they identified as a single individual and chose the pronouns he/him/his. Human reason is too feeble to grasp the principle of physics that made this arrangement possible, to say nothing of the miraculous arithmetic in which one plus one plus one equals one. Wonders such as these create a mystery that enthralls human beings and deepens their faith.
I would suggest that the NT can be used to argue that the "Holy Spirit" is both the power and presence of God.
Ro 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you...
Specifically, except in special cases such as 8:11, the Holy Spirit is the "power and presence" of Jesus Christ. The "Spirit of him" that "dwells in you" is a "first cause" statement - in Hebrew thought, the "first cause" is not always distinguished from "intermediate" or "secondary" causes.
Luke 1:35b The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
Luke 1:35c the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
The first characteristic - power - is simply presented in the above synonymous parallelism, that is, where the "second line repeats or reinforces the sense of the first" (How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, p.189).
Ac 1:8a But ye shall receive power [dunamis, as in Lk 1:35], after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you:
Joel B. Green notes that in "these parallel affirmations" ... "The Holy Spirit is identified with God's power in a way that anticipates Acts 1:8. The verb "to come upon" also anticipates Acts 1:8, and then the Pentecost event" (Luke, NICNT, p.90).
Rom 8:9a if so be that THE SPIRIT OF GOD dwell in you
Rom 8:9b ... if any man have not THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if CHRIST be in you...
"In Romans 8:9-10 the Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, and Christ all seem to be used interchangeably" (NIVSB).
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
"God becomes "our Father" through the gift of the Holy Spirit, whom Paul explicitly identifies in Gal 4:6 as "the Spirit of the Son," whom God sent "into out hearts" and who is thus responsible for crying out to God the Father in the language of the Son ("Abba")" (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.37-39).
Eph 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
"... Paul prays to the Father that Christ by his Spirit will be allowed to settle down in their hearts, and from his throne there both control and strengthen them..." (The Message of Ephesians, BST, pp.136).
As an aside:
"... what the risen Jesus says is what the Spirit says to the churches" (M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, Int., p.89).
Rev 2:8b These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
Rev 2:18b These things saith the Son of God,
Rev 3:14b These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Rev 2:7b the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Rev 2:11b the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev 2:17b the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone
Rev 2:8b These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
Rev 2:19a I know thy works
Rev 2:20a I have a few things against thee,
Rev 2:21a I gave her space to repent of her fornication;
Rev 2:22a I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23 I will kill her children with death;
Rev 2:23b I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts:
Rev 2:23c I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Rev 2:24a I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira,
Rev 2:24b I will put upon you none other burden.
Rev 2:25b hold fast till I come.
Rev 2:26b I give power over the nations:
Rev 2:27b I received of my Father.
Rev 2:28 I will give him the morning star.
Rev 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
You have to look at the major trend and effect. Armstrongism has always tenaciously defended their unique doctrines to which they cling. The problem is that they use these doctrines in a very self-righteous and unloving way, to put down and repudiate everybody else. In the Armstrongite small mind, this elevates and puffs up themselves and their little anal retentive Pharisaic world. That is not a very loving or Christlike modus operandi. It produces the complete opposite effects of the foundational goals of Christianity.
Luke 1:35 says Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit, described as the "power of the Highest".
I agree there are some scriptures that seem to describe the Holy Spirit as having a mind and a will (eg Acts 13:2 and Romans 8:26-27). But we must try to have an understanding that incorporates the revelation of these along with the scriptures that do seem to be talking of the Spirit as the power of God. Or as the means by which God interacts with the hearts and minds of His faithful. Eg Acts 5:32 which says God gives His Holy Spirit to those who obey Him.
Sitting on the fence and dipping your toe in again. Nothing new. Spitting out the hatred of labelling Sabbath keeping CHRISTIANS as 'Armstrongisim' is quite revealing of the hatred.
I'm sure Satan the Devil too would hate to call Christians by their real description.
Anonymous 7:44 wrote, "Just more to consider: Jesus said I and my Father are one, not I, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one. The "WE" in John 14:23 is Jesus and the Father, not Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit. The "He" referring to the Holy Spirit in verse 26 is from the Greek Strong's 1565 meaning that one (or [neut] thing)..."
It is important to understand what constitutes logical argument. If you don't understand this, you can be easily victimized by errant theology emanating from a questionable pulpit.
You found a place where Jesus mentions himself and the Father. This does not constitute a proof that the Holy Spirit is not a Person. There are Triadic Formulas in the NT. An example is:
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all,” (2 Corinthians 13:14)."
This demonstrates that there are three Divinities. (Logically, it means that there are at least three Divinities. It does not prove there are not more than three Divinities. But we just have no evidence elsewhere of this polytheistic idea.) What you have is not a proof but just an isolated point of data.
As for your point of grammar, it is just an issue of usage. Other places in scripture the word Paraklete is used of the Holy Spirit. Paraklete is masculine. Nouns in other languages have genders and these grammatical genders do not necessarily correspond to biological gender. In German, the word for maiden (Mädchen) is neuter. Do you believe that God has gender? Do you believe that God has a body? That is an allied but different topic and is a source of error in Armstrongism but it bears on what you are trying to assert as a proof.
Redermann
Anonymous 9:38
You wrote, "If the holy spirit is a person, he would want, and be given equal honor to the other two. Which you do not find in the NT. So a statistical analysis does count."
Here is a Triadic Formula that honors the Holy Spirit: "“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all,” (2 Corinthians 13:14)." There are other Triadic Formulas in scripture.
You wrote, "That your third party holy spirit would not demand the same is inconceivable."
There is difference in operation between the Father and Holy Spirit, on one hand, and the Incarnate Son on the other hand. This has to do with differing activities and responsibilities. It does not constitute any kind of proof concerning spiritual Personhood.
Redermann
Anonymous 7:56 wrote, "One thing that is an example of what I see is in the convoluted comment about no emphasis in teaching about “Jesus.”
There is a theme of Arianism that is found in the Church of God Seventh Day. Though I have not researched it myself, others have mentioned that there are yet Church of God Seventh day ministers who believe Arianism. I do know that Dugger and Dodd made a favorable mention of "Dr. Arius" in their church history. Arianism holds that Jesus is a created being and is not co-eternal with God. That is full status Arianism but its influence maybe seen in other, somewhat mitigated forms.
For instance, the WCG always seemed to place emphasis on John 14:28: "...the Father is greater than I." This is an unnuanced view that overlooks the reality that Christ is less than the Father in his humanity but equal to God in his divinity. Prior to Kenosis, Jesus was equal to God (Phil 2:6) and was restored to this status post-resurrection (John 17:5).
To see this Arianist flavor in Armstrongism, look at the second quotation in the list of quotations at the top of my essay. HWA creates a neat operational, top-down hierarchy for God. Without any further qualification, one would think that this is the way God had always operated and always would operate.
I think you can imagine how dismaying it would be for a man who believed in single-leader authoritarism, the leader being himself, to look into the Scripture and discover that God is three, co-equal, co-eternal persons. When HWA first read about the Trinity, my guess is that it was the worst day of his life.
Redermann
To Redermann,
You seem to be determined to hang on to one’s own assumptions. Quoting the CoG7, is not proof of your stance.
HWA quoted examples from scripture to substantiate his understanding. Your twist on what you believe he meant is not convincing. Having spent much private time with him I cannot accept your summation. Sorry, but it seems to me you are desperate to find the loose brick.
My experience versus the critics come lately trying to analyze what they think happened or was taught is the difference between light and darkness. Eccle. 2:13-14, Rom. 1:21-22.
Nuff said.
The quote about teaching the Messiah was a created being was NOT taught by the RCG or the WCG. Are you getting a little desperate to prove a point not taught by HWA???
Anonymous 9:12, Anonymous 9:47
I am sorry you misunderstood my statements so thoroughly. I made a distinction between full status Arianism and Arianist influence. I do not believe that HWA or the WCG were in any way full status Arianists. I do believe the WCG under HWA's direction had a preoccupation with the Torah, the Old Testament and Moses to the partial exclusion of Christ. I have no idea if this stems from Arianist views in the Millerite Movement, but it would be doltish to ignore the possibility.
I really do not care about the Arianist angle presently. I may look into it more in the future. I would like to know if G.G. Rupert was an Arianist. And I am not trying to prove anything with my reference to the Church of God Seventh Day. The evidence that HWA misunderstood the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit exists in great abundance without resort to anywhere else. There are online archives of his writing which we can compare to Scripture.
I am not desperate to find a loose brick when the whole house is in collapse.
What you both need to do, instead of engaging in vitriol, is to provide well-reasoned responses to the theological substance of what I have written.
Redermann
Anonymous 9:12, Anonymous 9:47
I am sorry you misunderstood my statements so thoroughly. I made a distinction between full status Arianism and Arianist influence. I do not believe that HWA or the WCG were in any way full status Arianists. I do believe the WCG under HWA's direction had a preoccupation with the Torah, the Old Testament and Moses to the partial exclusion of Christ. I have no idea if this stems from Arianist views in the Millerite Movement, but it would be doltish to ignore the possibility.
I really do not care about the Arianist angle presently. I may look into it more in the future. I would like to know if G.G. Rupert was an Arianist. And I am not trying to prove anything with my reference to the Church of God Seventh Day. The evidence that HWA misunderstood the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit exists in great abundance without resort to anywhere else. There are online archives of his writing which we can compare to Scripture.
I am not desperate to find a loose brick when the whole house is in collapse.
What you both need to do, instead of engaging in vitriol, is to provide well-reasoned responses to the theological substance of what I have written.
Redermann
You have to be in both the spiritual church ( the body of christ) and corporal church (RCG) in order for you to be in the church of God ( the true church) without both you cannot be a member of God's true church. Do you believe in the one true church of God? Or the " true churches of God?" Is God leading one true organization or many true organizations?
Not interested in Arianism presently??
=============
Then why bring it up now? And using it to infer another was bent in that direction? Especially now you admitted you don’t believe that, per se.
Present a theological thesis without assumptions and that might be good to respond to.
Reading the complete library of HWA writings and then adding personal assumptions of what he meant cannot and should not be responded to since hard set assumptions are not easily eradicated from the biased mind.
Oh, as I recall, HWA never said the Son was inferior to the Father. He said they agreed to the how they would operate. My paraphrase from memory.
If life is a bowl of cherries why do the critics only share the pits?
In Malachi 1:6 it states "If I am a Father, then where is the honor due me." If the holy spirit is a person, this would equally apply to him. Instead in the NT he is like the "invisible child" in an toxic family system. He is over shadowed by God the Father and Jesus Christ.
Are you ever going to post anything on topic, TC?
2:38, have you said anything good about any of the "critics" here? The WCG said the Christians outside of the WCG were not Christian, that they were deceived or in rebellion. The WCG said the Catholic Church was the whore of Revelation.
And, you chastise the people here for criticizing beliefs while at the same time presuming bias in others and not recognizing it in yourself?!?!
You haven’t been raptured yet TC? You were supposed to be wearing white on the roof so David Passover could see you on his way to heaven.
"I do believe the WCG under HWA's direction had a preoccupation with the Torah, the Old Testament and Moses to the partial exclusion of Christ."
Certainly the Bible lessons for the children did a thorough coverage of the Old Testament (from Adam to Solomon and probably beyond), but neglected to teach Jesus and the New Testament and early New Testament church history.
Likewise for the "Bible Story" books with Basil Wolverton illustrations.
I don't begrudge the Old Testament education — after all it's the word of God and the foundation leading to Jesus' coming — but to fail to teach Jesus was either gross negligence or heresy, depending on the reason why it was omitted.
Even now, in UCG for example, the "Bible Reading Program" (afterwards converted to Bible Commentary) got to the end of the Old Testament and then stopped.
While I do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity, it is helpful to be aware of the understandings of the Trinity among Trinitarians.
"And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal".
Modern trinitarian have somewhat distanced themselves from the formula of the Athanasian Creed above. For example:
Eph 1:3a Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...
Jn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her ... go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Mk 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
“The Scriptures teach a ‘primacy’ of the Father within the Holy Trinity; Eph 1:3, he is the God and Father of Jesus; Jn 20:17, he is ‘my God’ to the risen Lord Jesus; Mk 13:32 notes a rising scale of being, ‘ no one ... not the angels .. nor the Son...’, i.e. lack of this knowledge was not an earthly limitation but a fact within the Holy Trinity; cf. 1 Cor 15:28; etc.
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
“Without supposing that Phil 2:6ff. is based on the Pauline doctrine of the first and second Adam, the Adam of Gn 3 can be used ILLUSTRATIVELY here.
Lk 3:38b ... Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Ge 1:26a And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
1Co 11:7a For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:
“He too, in his way, was the son, image and glory of God (Lk 3:38; Gn 1:26; 1 Cor 11:7); but when tempted, he did in fact use his privileged position as a ground of self-advantage; being in the image of God he grasped as a robber after the chance to be ‘like God’ (Gn 3:5) - and grasping, died. Christ by contrast, refused to grasp for himself; rather he laid hold on death that we might live” (Alec Motyer, The Message of Philippians, BST, p.111).
Ro 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all...
“So thoroughgoing is Paul’s christocentric worldview that he can hardly talk about God without also mentioning Christ...
“God the Father is always the “first cause” of everything and thus always appears in the primary position as the “prime mover”; nonetheless, the focus of Paul’s life is on Christ himself...” (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp. 1, 8-9).
Anonymous 2:38
"Then why bring it up now?" Why not bring it up? It is a line of research that maybe someone else is interested in pursuing. Or maybe some blogger already has information on this. There is no reason for me to conform to whatever your standard is about suppressing criticism of HWA.
You wrote, "Present a theological thesis without assumptions and that might be good to respond to."
If you think that the Holy Spirit as an energy instead of a being is an assumption after reading some WCG publications, then I think you are maybe a little disingenuous.
"HWA never said the Son was inferior to the Father."
I don’t recall using the word inferior. But here is something that HWA wrote in March 1983 Good News magazine. This is in an article titled, “WHY Christ Died – and Rose Again!”
“The Greek word is Logos. It means "Word" or "Spokes man." This is referring to the One who co-existed with the Father from eternity - who always existed - who is one with the Father, yet, as He Himself said, His Father is greater than He. Always He referred to Himself as One sent by the Father, He said that the words He spoke were not spoken of Himself, but the Father who sent Him gave Him a commandment what He should say and speak. The one who gives the orders and sends another is in a position SUPERIOR to the one sent, and who obeys the orders…”
I capitalized the word superior so you would see it. If A is superior to B, then B is inferior to A. HWA is saying that the Son is inferior to the Father in contravention to your statement. There is nothing alarming about HWA’s statement. It comes from John 14:28. What is alarming, as I mentioned before, is if HWA believed that Jesus, the Logos, was always inferior to God and always would be. I have not tried to establish that yet. My guess is that he never addressed that, and this is all he said about the topic. If you can find that HWA stated that Jesus’ inferior status to God was only during the period of his earthly ministry, let me know.
Redermann
Ya know, the internet is littered with ugliness. Go to any news site, and you'll find pictures of peoples' bare feet with toenails rotted from fungus, pictures of unidentified disgusting stuff to induce you to visit websites on how to cleanse your bowels, fat bellies with cellulite, and deliberately ugly seniors (the aged kind, not the Spanish kind) with wrinkles making them look 100 years old. It's done deliberately to catch your attention.
The deliberate ugliness we see here on the blog is Armstrongism posted by Armstrongites, messing up our usual neat and cool discussions about the solutions we've found to the Armstrong problem.. And, it always gets our attention, albeit in disgustingly negative ways. Don't the Armstrong groupies realize that their guru has been cancelled?
The only ones who go on and on about a deceased man is you and your cronies. Why call this blog "Banned by HWA" ? Why put his name in the title name of this blog ? You did that, none forced you. Hypocrites.
"On the other hand, it would be nice if someone would take the REAL teaching on the Holy Spirit as was really taught, versus snippets of verses, and tear that teaching apart, if you can."
This is the challenge hurled out by one of the respondents. This is an odd statement because that it seems to ignore the fact that I already challenged, and I think effectively, the Armstrongist view of the Holy Spirit. The effectiveness is measured by the fact that nobody seems to have made a substantive counterargument for HWA's view.
A criticism that has clearly emerged is that I have not described the actual belief that HWA taught about the Holy Spirit - that my view is based on assumption. The array of assumptions is not identified, and specific exegeted counterpoints are not proposed. Nobody has even said, "read this article written by HWA to get his actual view." And the research point is simple - either Armstrongism asserts that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal energy, or it doesn't. So, I find this to be a very soft critique.
I used material written by HWA and other Armstrongists that I researched in on-line archives of WCG publications. I have my own memories of what HWA said but I did not include that data. It is entirely possible I have misinterpreted some of the published material. But I do not believe drastically so.
So, the lack of a research-based counterpoint is a loose end still flapping in the wind of debate.
Redermann
Yes, HWA used the term "Dr." when describing Arius as well (Mystery of the Ages).
“ The one who gives the orders and sends another is in a position SUPERIOR to the one sent, and who obeys the orders…”
I capitalized the word superior so you would see it. If A is superior to B, then B is inferior to A. HWA is saying that the Son is inferior to the Father in contravention to your statement.”
==============
This quote does not say the Messiah is inferior. That’s just your interpretation. What it says is “…is in a POSITION superior to…” That is not a statement relative to character, etc. It is simply stating that the POSITION of one sending vs the POSITION of one being sent is different. Sorry, I don’t buy your rendition.
But, thanks for trying!
Anonymous 4:06
This does not make sense to me. Why should we refrain from speaking about Calvinism or Lutheranism or Arminianism or the Monroe Doctrine, for that matter, because all the principals are deceased? History is really about deceased people. Your stance is in opposition for free inquiry. In fact, there are many critical reasons to look into the booklet theology of HWA. And there is no hypocrisy about it. It is quite open and true to principle. Your use of the term "hypocrites" is puzzling. It seems to be gratuitous. Just something you pulled out of your inventory of epithets at random, I would guess. I usually let these sorts of statements go by because they lack substance. This time the inapt use of the term "hypocrites" bothered me.
In short, just because HWA is dead does not give him a "get out of jail free" card. His booklet theology lives on. And it deserves to be examined.
Redermann
Basically, what we see here is an argument over the unfathomable. It's what happens when some religious leaders claim to have the truth about the unknowable.
A being within a being/person? No. There is a spirit in man - Job 32:8 but it is not a being. Likewise the Holy Spirit given by God to a true Christian is not a being.
Regarding the "get out of jail free" card, the evil people do during their lifetime and the error they teach last long after their deaths. Compared to Simon Magus, HWA has been dead for a relatively short time. Irenaeus countered and repudiated Simon by destroying as much of Simon's written material as he could, and also by penning "Against Heresies", countering Simon's teachings so that the proto-Catholics would be protected from them. You might say that we here are doing the same with another heretic and false teacher called Herbert W. Armstrong. We won't go down as historically significant characters as is Irenaeus, nor should we, but the work we do here is equally important.
Anonymous 8:42
I just don't get what you are talking about. By position do you mean physical location in space? If that is so, that is not what HWA is talking about. HWA is talking about the Father having more authority than Jesus. Re-read the passage.
Interjecting the word "position" does not resolve anything. If the idea of position can be forced into the picture, it would be a position of authority.
Redermann
Rederman,
If you have doubts about the Christian faith, it doesn't matter whether you know if the Spirit is an entity or an energy, so why are you provoking others about something you yourself are not convinced of?
This is an old doctrine that's been argued for 2000 years, so you're not presenting anything new.
A major part of the problem is that the KJ translators, who couldn't define the Spirit either, translated it as "him", rather than as "it".
BTW, if you think that the Spirit is an entity with a "mind", why then does Christ say in Luke 12:10 that blasphemy against the Spirit is not forgiveable, whereas blasphemy against Him is? If the holy trinity is of one mind, why the serious discrepancy here? If you sin against one, don't you sin against the other also?
Anon, Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 10:12:00 AM PST, wrote:
"...A being within a being/person? No. There is a spirit in man - Job 32:8 but it is not a being. Likewise the Holy Spirit given by God to a true Christian is not a being..."
******
And Anon, if that weren't enough, there exists another spirit in man (different from Job 32:8) besides what was mentioned there.
God is aware of spirits relative to human beings:
"All the ways of a man [are] clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits. "Proverbs 16:2
Job 32:8 states: "But [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding."
What is the other spirit in man?
"...The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" James 4:5
Do you think that the scripture in James 4:5 was inspired to preserved was written in vain?
That spirit was bothering Christians like James and the apostle Paul.
"Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:" Ephesians 2:2
Is it possible that lust (John 8:44) and envy (Galatians 5:21) may have a connection with disobedience (Eph 2:2)?
Might, for example, these inspired scriptures regarding the spirit in man help explain why Cain killed (I John 3:12) his own brother, and possibly explain to some degree the evils of racism, inflation, murders, drug deaths, hatred, family problems, etc. spewed out across nations of the world today? Are we somehow held hostage in a world held captive (e.g. like prisoners living in a prison house Isaiah 14:17, 42:7)?
Time will tell...
John
Artificial Intelligence is now being applied to the Bible and religion. Just as AI has been able to assimilate thousands of pages of data from various reputable sources, and to write detailed papers on matters scientific, medical, historic, and political there is now a relatively recent development (2020j called AI-Jesus. I'm somewhat surprised that we haven't been exposed to the writings of AI Jesus as of yet here on Banned. If there were any scientific intelligent brain monsters amongst the COGlodytes, they'd most likely be developing AI Herbert W. Armstrong. Wouldn't it just be a gas if someone did exactly that, and started their own ACOG based on it? Well, maybe not quite a gas for the Armstrongites, but definitely a gas for us! It would have all the ingredients which caused Armstrongism to bomb the first time! And maybe even amplified.
Anonymous 10:12 wrote, "A being within a being/person? No."
Jesus stated in John 17:
"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."
Jesus is a being. If you are converted, he lives within you. I do not know the mechanism of how that happens. Paul stated that Jesus lived in him. My guess is that this indwelling for the Holy Spirit is the same as the indwelling for Jesus. I tend to interpret the indwelling as an influence at a very fundamental level - like at the point of thought generation. But I don't know. That's the language in the Bible, however.
Redermann
Anonymous 2:53
If you are a farmer living in Anatolia and are a First Century Christian, it might not make a difference if you know the Holy Spirit is an energy or being. If you are a person living now and you can read and write and own a Bible and can read Christian doctrine, your level of responsibility might be different. That is only my speculation. I'm no man's judge.
Odd that you would conclude from what I have written that I have doubts about the Christian faith. The thing I have doubts about, and it should be apparent, is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as conceived in Armstrongism. That's the whole thrust of what I wrote.
I am not trying to present something new. I am providing a brief analysis of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as promulgated in the Armstrongist denominations.
I think you have it backwards. Blasphemy should be a greater wrong against a being rather than an impersonal energy. How is an impersonal energy going to feel trampled on? Does electricity get offended?
The Trinity is not only one but also three. Jesus' statement is based on the three-ness instead of the one-ness.
Redermann
Why are people bothering with this Redermann crown stealer? He just ignores and invalidates all legitimate arguments that contradict his views.
And no, he still hasn't planted any (rotten) seeds in my mind.
Anonymous 6:31
You do not know if I am a "crown stealer" unless you evaluate my arguments and present rational counterpoints that can be assessed by the readers of this blog. If I am found to be wrong, and you can demonstrate it, I will have just been the "loyal opposition" rather than a "crown stealer." The latter term is just the catchy salesman talk you get from the Armstrongist pulpit. If you have not done the research and formed a credible opposing view, which you have not, you are just trading in gratuitous epithet.
I could just as easily assert that HWA stole the crowns of his followers and you are working your best to make sure they remain stolen for whatever reasons. It is an easy game to play. Doing the research and making the credible response is what has substance. So far nothing you have presented has any substance. And I do not believe expecting well-reasoned, credible debate is a "rotten" seed although I would expect that it is something you are not accustomed to given your background in Armstrongist rhetoric.
Redermann
"O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion1 or say about Allāh except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allāh and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allāh and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allāh is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allāh as Disposer of affairs."
Redermann,
You have an answer for everything but you say nothing. You are like the masses who are attracted to Christ's words and doctrine but who don't know Christ. Your kind is found in 1 Cor 1-2 where Paul describes men like you who use "wisdom of words" (1:17), "enticing words of man's wisdom" (2:4) to explain spiritual things. You are infatuated with your education just like all the academic frauds who believe in evolution. Read 1 Cor 1:27 and try to understand this: "God has called the foolish of the world in order to confound the wise". Once you and the rest of the church begin to understand this, then we will be able to make progress on what is truth and what isn't.
How can you be convinced when you are convinced against yourself? Your speculative mind has an answer for everything, while you resist any evidence under the presumption that it isn't evidence. You not only resist the doctrine but the evidence for it. Thus you are like Job's friends who were condemned in the end by the Lord, even though they spoke "intelligently" to Job. You are like the one who proudly must have the last word while not knowing what you are talking about. The devil tempts you to resist all comers by his orders. When you admit to some ignorance, you act as if that can be pardoned.
At 4:03, as an example, you show your stupidity and ignorance of this doctrine and of Scripture (Lk 12:10) when you loosely write that a blasphemy against a person is worse than blasphemy against the Spirit, PROVING BY YOUR ANSWER THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE SPIRIT IS A PERSON BUT A POWER, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH HWA'S TEACHINGS AND CONTRARY TO THE WORTHLESS THESIS THAT YOU PRESENTED.
How many scriptures did you quote in your thesis? Most of it was your own words. So you are trying to prove a biblical doctrine mostly on your own logic and reasoning? What do you want us to do? Argue the scriptures or against your verbose sophistry? Is there any evidence that you are willing to admit (like the blood on the Bronco) since you set yourself as judge and jury and declare that traditional Christianity has this doctrine right?
I would like to offer a few additional thoughts on this topic:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-personification-of-god.html
Got it, 9:47. In order to know God and Jesus, you gotta surround yourself with ignorant rednecks and hillbillies. They're the only people that God can work through during our present era, because Satan's science and pagan philosophy have messed everything up.
I sincerely hope that you don't do your taxes that way!
Redermann
A trait of the human mind is that there is always a polarization. People either morally swim up stream or are swept down stream. So the bible's "the wicked borrow and don't repay" is universal among those going down stream. So many times I experienced different people having these similar negative traits and ploys, that it felt like I had been hit in the face with a frying pan. Yet over and over when talking to these people, they fancied that they were mentally invisible to me.
You are just an intellectualized version of a common school yard bully. You pretend to answer opposing points of view, while in fact ignoring what's being said. Which is a Dave Pack and similar favorite ploy.
All bullies are crown stealers. It's in their nature.
Redermann.
We know that God is not the author of confusion, but for a doctrine that is presented as the TEST of orthodoxy, it is anything but. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia affirms the Trinity is not just controversial, but "ambiguous", "difficult" and very thin on evidence (article TRINITY, 1979, vol.4 PG 914-917)
The idea the HS is an impersonal force is very poor wording. I know the JWs put it that way but I have never heard that expression in the COGs.
The HS is very personable, and it needs not be a "person" to be such. Its personality is that of the Father and Son. God, the Father and Son, IS SPIRIT, the HS is their essence, their power, and an extension of their very being.
In Matt 12:28, Christ says, if I cast out devils by the spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God is come to you. The parallel account found in Luke 11:20 demonstrates my point:
If I cast out devils by the FINGER OF GOD, the KOG is come to you.
A finger is not a separate person but an extension of ones being.
Scripture is often interpreted by ones preconceived ideas, which are read into the text. If the spirit is a separate, distinct person, you can easily read that into certain passages. My basis for interpretation is that which is admitted by the ISBE that "the Spirit in the NT is personally less distinct than the Father and Son, and his divinity less clearly stated. One properly concludes that the NT is overall clearly BINITARIAN in its data, and PROBABLY? Trinitarian??" Page 917.
The list of scriptures provided by Anon 2/10/249 am and Anon 2/10/532 pm are quite convincing of that said data. I want to specifically look at Ted's sophomoric example. Comparing Matt 1:18, 20 with Luke 1:35, we learn that
Christ is a child of the HS, conceived of the HS, by the power of the Highest, which is the Father.
If the HS is a distinct person, this is a contradiction. If the spirit is an extension of the Father's essence, it makes sense! In human terms, a woman conceives and a child is begotten by a man's sperm. Sperm IS NOT a separate person, but an extension, a product OF THE MAN! The man is the father, not the sperm!!!
When Ted used this analogy on the John Ankerberg show, both John and Walter Martin ran and hid. This part was even edited off the main broadcast!
As far as your "majority rules" goes, I don't care how many people believe one way or the other. I believe the apostle Paul:
"But to US, there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" 1 Cor 8:6-7.
Sadly, "not everyone has that knowledge"!!!!
Are there any trinitarians that observe the sabbath?
Let's get something clear. All of us are swimming upstream in some ways and areas of our lives, and floating downstream in others. This even holds true within the general category of being a Christian. You might treat those around you in a more Christlike way as you age, even as your memory fades and you can no longer remember as many scriptures as you memorized. Many of the Armstrongites who post here speak of their crowns, but it is plain that they are adrift in splinterland, attempting to float right up to the bitter end.
Having said that, over the years we have seen numerous spiritual bullies around here who think they have a calling. Sometimes they do have a juicy tidbit here or there that can be useful, just as long as you don't buy into their whole schtick. Not going to make the same mistake with them that I did with HWA.
Of course. Check out the Seventh Day Adventists.
Also, the granddaddy of all Sabbath keeping groups, Seventh Day Baptists, are Trinitarians.
Anonymous 9:47
The issue, I believe, stems from the way ministers in the WCG spoke to lay members. If you had a question, the dialog went like this:
1. You ask the question.
2. The minister answers the question.
3. You shut up and say thank you.
In step 3 you never, ever respond to what the minister says. He makes a pronouncement and the discussion is over period. If you do examine what he says, he will be in your face about an attitude problem. Been there, done that.
I do not follow that model. If you say something I disagree with, I will tell you and cite why. If you respond with something I still disagree with, I am going to challenge you again and will challenge you as long as you present arguments that have something wrong with them.
Sorry. This is not the WCG.
Redermann
Anonymous 9:47 wrote:
"At 4:03, as an example, you show your stupidity and ignorance of this doctrine and of Scripture (Lk 12:10) when you loosely write that a blasphemy against a person is worse than blasphemy against the Spirit, PROVING BY YOUR ANSWER THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE SPIRIT IS A PERSON BUT A POWER, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH HWA'S TEACHINGS AND CONTRARY TO THE WORTHLESS THESIS THAT YOU PRESENTED."
You don't need to use all caps. You are not Herbert W. Armstrong. I stated this:
"I think you have it backwards. Blasphemy should be a greater wrong against a being rather than an impersonal energy. How is an impersonal energy going to feel trampled on? Does electricity get offended?"
This nowhere intimates that I believe the Holy Spirit is a power. The lens you are reading through is blurred with Armstrongism. In fact, I am saying that the concern about blasphemy indicates that the Holy Spirit is a person. Can you commit blasphemy against electricity?
If someone can understand what this person's rationale is, let me know.
Redermann (Die Argumentation ergibt keinen Sinn. Du weißt.)
All of us are swimming up stream in some ways and areas and of our lives, and floating down stream in others.
I have never observed this in the moral sphere. I have experienced many technically gifted bullies in my workplace. Some twisted ACOG ministers and elders are gifted speakers. Bullies can take up new interests such as a sport, but they never go forward in any moral area. The bible says as much when Paul instructs that beaking one of the commandments means breaking them all, since they are all interconnected.
Where bullies "grow" is in refining their Pharisaic mask and becoming more skilled in exploiting people.
Morally the rich get richer and the poor get poorer via virtuous cycles and vicious cycles (ie, Esau mortality). Which is why evil people become worse in their old age, as workers in nursing homes are fully aware of. Hollywood by contrast pushes the myth that gangster see the light in their senior years, which is a big no no.
Redermann (Die Argumentation ergibt keinen Sinn. Du weißt.)
Hey great I see German, the language of the great rational people in contrast to the funny Anglo's.
When in the 19th century people referred to Napoleon and especially Tzar Alexander the Great liberator of Europe and therefore the World, as "The Great Spirit of the Age"
Not a single person in the World believed these people were God's or Spirit Persons. They however were the Embodiment of every colliding Energy, History, Action etc of the Time.
And this is not some obscure observation. Major works of arts were produced to present Tzar Alexander that way!!
Nck
Nck
Zeitgeist? Das habe ich, ja, auch gedacht. Man kann nicht immer sicher sein, wie das wort "Spirit" in der Bibel benutzt ist.
My guess is that the word Spirit is used a number of ways in the OT and NT - some ways are entirely literary. Maybe some seminary student somewhere has gone through and cataloged all the ways and captured the categories in a neat chart. But for the typical reader, we must rely on context. And analogy, while it can paint a vivid picture, becomes obscurant for the fine parsers among us. And there is always the downside that someone will read an analogy and think it is straight, unadorned English.
Redermann
Ah yes!
I will remain the silent observer. Interesting that you respond to my German remark, the Hindu not so much, even if the Vedda's offer interesting concepts of the all permeating atoms :-) ;-) Never mind this Genie will return to its box where it caved some years ago. Until of course someone rubs it the wrong way. :-) ;-0 :-)
nck
Redermann,
Your comments at 4:28 show that you didn't understand me or the scripture that I quoted.
The Spirit cannot disagree with the others in the Godhead on what can be forgiven because the Father, the Son and the Spirit are one. (1 John 5:7) And this issue of forgiveness is a matter of life and death. So by calling the Spirit a person, you show how little you know about the holiness and unity in the Godhead, because there can't be any doctrinal division there, thus supporting the argument that it is an impersonal force. This fact that there can't be doctrinal division in the Godhead cannot be controverted. Otherwise you call God a liar. Therefore, arguing about something that you don't know (whether the Spirit is a force or a person), you unwittingly support the HWA view while denying it.
Yes, blasphemy is against a person but it is human reasoning to say that this is evidence in support of the view that the HS is a person. What? You don't know how the Spirit works? Your analogy of the Spirit to electricity, an impersonal force, is a good one. Why? Because resisting it when it reveals truth to you will kill you in the end.
So what do we conclude? We conclude that if you blaspheme Christ -- the name -- unwittingly and in ignorance, you still have an opportunity to regret it and be forgiven in the end, according to Luke 12:10.
But if you constantly blaspheme the Spirit -- the power -- when it flows to you from the Father, the Son or any believer, you cannot receive forgiveness and a clear conscience because you are resisting it right to the end. And the Spirit is called the Spirit of truth in the Scripture so we aren't talking about liars speaking to you here.
Aside from this, you make a good comment above about the "downside" of reading an analogy because it reminds me of HWA and the church's grave mistake of taking an analogy (of the human birth) and turning it into a false doctrine (that we are only begotten and not born upon conversion), which still ails us today.
Electricity may be a rather tame analogy.
Eze 43:4 The glory [kabod] of the LORD entered the temple through the gate facing east.
Eze 43:5b and the glory of the LORD filled the temple.
Eze 43:6 While the man was standing beside me, I heard someone speaking to me from inside the temple.
Eze 43:7a He said: “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will dwell [shakan] among the Israelites forever.
“From the word for "dwelling" (miskan) and its root, the later Israelites developed a name for the presence of God in the Most Holy Place - the Shekinah" (R. Laird Harris, Leviticus, EBC, Vol.2, pp.643-45).
"The Shekinah" is the "nearest Jewish equivalent to the Holy Spirit... The glory of God (kabod in the Heb. Bible, doxa in LXX and NT) is another name for the Shekinah... Thunder, lightning and cloud may be outward concomitants of God's glory (Ex 19:16; 24:14ff.; Ps 29; 97; the tent of meeting (Ex 40:34-38) or with the Temple (Ezk 43:2, 4)..." (R. A. Stewart. "Shekinah," NBD, 2nd ed., pp.1101-02).
Heb 1:3a Who being the brightness of his glory [doxa], and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power
In the NC with the House of Israel and Judah, God, through Jesus Christ, will have a ‘dwelling presence’ in the Millennial Temple, just as he did in the Mosaic Tabernacle and the Solomonic Temple.
Eze 44:19 When they go out into the outer court where the people are, they are to take off the clothes they have been ministering in and are to leave them in the sacred rooms, and put on other clothes, so that they do not consecrate the people by means of their garments.
2Ch 26:19 Uzziah, who had a censer in his hand ready to burn incense, became angry. While he was raging at the priests in their presence before the incense altar in the LORD'S temple, leprosy broke out on his forehead.
2Ch 26:20 When Azariah the chief priest and all the other priests looked at him, they saw that he had leprosy on his forehead, so they hurried him out. INDEED, HE HIMSELF WAS EAGER TO LEAVE, because the LORD had afflicted him.
"The concern for and protection of the holy. In ancient Israel, as elsewhere in the ancient Near East, a sanctuary was not a place to be entered lightly and unthinkingly. Rather, the sanctuary was seen as a danger zone, somewhat comparable to a nuclear power plant. In a nuclear power station, strict precautions have to be taken because of the special dangers of radioactivity, which can cause catastrophic effects if it is handled carelessly. Access to some areas of the site is strictly limited, and special clothing has to be worn for some processes to prevent lethal contact between those operating the plant and the radioactive material, and to prevent radioactivity being transmitted by them to the outside world. In an analogous way, the priests had to take special care in their dress and their conduct to avoid danger to themselves and to prevent dangerous levels of holiness being brought into contact with the general public.
"Nowhere is this caution more evident than in Ezekiel's vision. This is hardly surprising, given Ezekiel's own experience of seeing the Jerusalem temple defiled and subsequently destroyed by God's holy wrath. Anyone who personally witnessed the carnage caused by the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power station would understandably be concerned to tighten up regulations to guard against its repetition. In precisely the same way, Ezekiel's vision represents a tightening of the "holiness code of practice," a raising of the walls and reinforcing the steel of the containment chamber around the temple. Ezekiel is all too aware of something distant from our contemporary thinking: that it is a fearful thing for sinners to fall into the hands of the all-holy God" (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, pp.503-05).
5:05, How can electricity be a "tame analogy" while thunder, lightning and clouds be "outward concomitants"? There are electrical charges in these, too, aren't there?
Anonymous 10:00
I must correct myself. It is possible to blaspheme against the non-sentient. In scripture it mentions blasphemy against the tabernacle.
Redermann
Hi 10:51
“The Holy Spirit from Christ is like a current of electricity flowing through a light bulb. We are that bulb.” Herman Hoeh, (Plain Truth Magazine, June 1956).
When I said ‘electricity MAY BE a rather tame analogy’ I had in mind household electricity, aligned with the quote in the introduction to the article.
Beginning of Church Age Beginning of Kingdom Age
Ac 2:2a And suddenly there Eze 43:2athe glory of the God of Israel
came a sound from heaven came from the way of the east:
Ac 2:2a as of a rushing mighty wind Eze 43:2b and his voice was like a
noise of many waters: (note 1)
Ac 2:3 And there appeared unto them Eze 43:2c and the earth shined with his cloven tongues like as of fire, glory
and it sat upon each of them.
Ac 2:2b and it filled all the house [oikos], Eze 43:5b and, behold, the glory of where they were sitting. the Lord filled the house [oikos,
LXX]; "the temple," (NIV]
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the Eze 43:7a And he said unto me ... the
temple (naos) of God, and that the Spirit place of my throne, and the place of the
of God dwelleth in you? soles of my feet, where I will dwell in
the midst of the children of Israel
for ever... (note 2).
1. Eze 43:2b with Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
2. Eze 43:7a with Eze 41:4b and the breadth, twenty cubits, in front of the temple [naos]: and he said, This is the holy of holies. (Brenton, LXX).
Redermann,
Nay, the Spirit knows what you are feeling or perceiving so you can't call it non-sentient or compare it to the materials that made up the tabernacle. The Spirit is called the Spirit of life in Rom 8:2 so if its law is working in you favourably, it will know, sense or perceive it and report it to God.
Again, if the Spirit is said to be able to groan or sigh nonverbally in a believer (Rom 8:26) then you can't call it non-sentient, since it has the power to influence and convict you of what is sin, righteousness and better judgment. (Jn 16:8)
Nevertheless, a good point that if we blaspheme the tent of God (a type of the church), we also do it to God (and the church).
Post a Comment